Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 27, in 
clause 12, page 8, line 42, leave out 'should' and insert 'may'.—[Mr. Swayne.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 5, in
clause 12, page 8, line 42, leave out 
 'in the interests of maintaining security or good order' 
 and insert 
 'because of his serious misconduct or with his consent, for his own protection, or, in the interests of maintaining security'.
 No. 19, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert 
 'where a prisoner is transferred under subsection 2A, the jurisdiction which imposed a custodial sentence will be responsible for determining the date of release of the prisoner except where this is delayed by reason of his misconduct.'.
 No. 20, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert 
 'because of his serious misconduct or, with his consent, for his own protection.'.
 No. 21, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 22, at end insert— 
 'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report each year giving the number of orders made under section 2A of Schedule 1 to the Crime (sentences) Act 1997 (c.43) (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands).The report shall set out the reasons for which the orders were made.'.

Desmond Swayne: Before the Committee adjourned this morning, I was drawing my remarks to a close. The Minister gave us the benefit of a description of a situation in which the power under clause 12 to transfer prisoners would be most useful. He described a prisoner who had not been convicted of a misdemeanour but who was clearly the ringleader and was involved in planning and directing others. He said that, for the good order of the prison, that person would best be removed.
 However, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, some of whose members are present and may cast further light on their deliberations, had fears about precisely such a course of action, which prompted its recommendation. The person described is precisely the sort of person for whom there might be a great deal of support were the proposed action taken, and agitation might result. That is the key issue. My understanding of the Select Committee report is that, if a ringleader was identified in that way and transferred out of the prison, it would lead to agitation that could set the whole prison alight, as it were, whether through a dirty protest, a hunger strike or 
 whatever. It was for that reason that the Select Committee advised such caution. 
 I understand the problems associated with the issue, but I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to place on record the Government's commitment to the sanction and indicate with what caution or robustness they would use it in such circumstances. I hope that we will at least get on the record some indication of their appreciation of the Select Committee's concern.

Harry Barnes: I was a member of the Select Committee that produced the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he suggests, a difficult situation has arisen. Many of us felt that the step that we are discussing should not have been taken, but now that it has been, we are in the awkward circumstance of having to get it right. He was right to table probing amendments to ensure that the Minister responds to these rather awkward conditions. The dangers to which the Select Committee pointed exist, and what should we do in such conditions?

Desmond Swayne: That was a helpful intervention. I, too, hope that the Minister will be prompted to cast further light on the measure. He has been helpful so far, but he might share the deliberations of the Government further, particularly in respect of the Select Committee's recommendation.

John Spellar: I thank colleagues for the thoughtful way in which they have addressed this difficult issue. Everyone has recognised the difficulties associated with any course of action, as well as with inaction. I assure hon. Members that the decision to transfer prisoners will be made by Ministers who are conscious of the background to individual cases and alert to any ulterior motives that may lie behind a prisoner's disruptive behaviour. I stress that it is envisaged that the power will be used sparingly and will be subject to regular review. Prisoners will be returned to Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity unless there are compelling reasons why that should not happen.

Andrew Hunter: I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Before he concludes his comments, will he turn from politician to historian and contemplate the fact that a significant dimension of problems was added to the so-called troubles by previous Governments taking precisely this type of decision? Will he include in his comments an awareness of that fact and assure us that the mistakes of the past are not being repeated?

John Spellar: I have outlined that there are consequences of inaction as well as of action. Northern Ireland Ministers realise more than most that the hand of history lies on them, and they consider precedents, as those in the Select Committee that made the recommendations would have done; indeed, all of them were extremely experienced in such matters, not least the Chairman. We recognise the difficulties of any course of action, but we think that the provision strikes the right balance and is prudent.

Desmond Swayne: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in
clause 12, page 8, line 42, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 
 'another part of the United Kingdom'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 to 65.

John Spellar: The amendments provide that prisoners may be transferred to either Scotland, England or Wales. Prison matters are devolved in Scotland, and to legislate in the UK Parliament for prisoners transferring from Northern Ireland to Scotland, a Sewel motion was required in the Scottish Parliament. Such a motion was approved on 18 March, which allowed us to table the amendment.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 63, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 1, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 'that other part'.
 No. 64, in 
clause 12, page 9, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(7) In paragraph 13— 
 (a) in sub-paragraph (1) after ''1(1)(a)'' insert ''or (2A)(a)''; 
 (b) in sub-paragraph (2) after ''1(1)(b)'' insert ''or (2A)(b)''.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Harry Barnes: The issue of the transfer of prisoners arises in relation to the problem at Maghaberry and the matters considered by the Select Committee. Clause 12 contains a paradox on the transfer of prisoners. If provision for such transfer had existed prior to the Steele inquiry, the case for separating prisoners would have been weaker because it may have been possible to transfer paramilitary prisoner ringleaders despite the potential problems. That would have removed the need for separations, which cause problems and which the Select Committee correctly accepted as having taken place. The Committee was concerned that they had happened but wanted a firm line, and prison officers and others indicated that, given the word, they would hold the line. It is odd that the same proposals could have been used earlier in different circumstances.
 My second point is that the clause contains no distinction between the two sets of prisoners in Maghaberry prison, despite the fact that the case for transferring prisoners out of Northern Ireland seems to relate to paramilitaries in that prison. Why is the clause a general provision applying to all prisoners? I realise that dividing the two sets of prisoners might alter the whole climate in the prison, which may affect ordinary, decent criminals, as they are usually called, as distinct from the paramilitary criminals. In certain circumstances, some ordinary, decent criminals may seek to claim paramilitary status, not least because the provisions for paramilitary criminals may be better.

Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as critical mass is important to paramilitaries, some
 prisoners may be pressurised or even intimidated into declaring themselves to be of that persuasion?

Harry Barnes: There is that difficulty, which is part of my concern. Is it fair for ordinary decent criminals to get caught up in these arrangements? They may do so because of pressure from paramilitary prisoners and outside communities with links to paramilitary prisoners, and because the provisions for paramilitary groups appear to be better. That may be why we are introducing provisions that will be applied across the board, but it is unfortunate that we are introducing a general solution for all prisoners in Northern Ireland because of paramilitary problems.

Desmond Swayne: I want to expand briefly on my intervention. After this morning's proceedings, I handed my copy of the Select Committee's report to the Hansard reporter, but I recall that the Select Committee expressed the strong opinion that there had to be an absolute ban on self-selection in which ordinary prisoners simply declare themselves to be a member of one paramilitary group or another. It said that such a process would lead to precisely the sort of intimidation to increase paramilitary numbers that I described in my intervention, and suggested that paramilitary status be designated only on the clear evidence of police officers and the proper authorities.

John Spellar: I understand the points that are being made, but I wish to pose another hypothetical scenario. A prisoner with the separated status of a paramilitary member who believed that we had become aware of their activities to disrupt the prison, despite not being guilty of any misdemeanour that would have rendered them liable to disciplinary action, might seek to revert to integrated status in order to avoid the provisions that hon. Members are suggesting would apply only to those subject to separated status. We recognise many of the difficulties that have been outlined, which is why we envisage that the power will be used sparingly. At the same time, however, we need to keep a range of options for people who will try to exploit every possible loophole and difficulty.
 The relocation of a prisoner outside Northern Ireland may be the most appropriate action to take in circumstances in which an individual cannot be accommodated in integrated or separated accommodation. The basic aim is to recognise the difficulties of having separated groups, although there are reasons for having them. We need new powers, including this proposed compulsory transfer power, if we are to prevent slippage towards full Maze-style segregation. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 13 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Repeals

Andrew Hunter: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
schedule 4, page 19, line 22, at end insert— 
 'Police (Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c.32) Section 47.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 4—Lateral entry to Police Service of Northern Ireland for serving full-time reserve officers— 
'After section 45 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 insert— 
 ''45A Lateral Entry to Police Service for Northern Ireland for Serving Full-Time Reserve Officers 
 (1) Those serving in the full-time reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland having completed one year's service may apply for a transfer to be police trainees. 
 (2) Such transfers will be automatically accepted by the Chief Constable unless: 
 (a) the applicant is subject to disciplinary action; or 
 (b) the applicant is subject to an investigation by the Police Ombudsman. 
 (3) A person making an application under this section will not be subject to the provisions of section 46.''.'.
 New clause 5—Discrimination in appointments— 
'For section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 substitute— 
 ''46 Discrimination in appointments 
 In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable shall appoint candidates on merit alone.''.'.
 Amendment No. 66, in 
title, line 12, after 'services', insert 
 'to amend Part VI of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000;'.

Andrew Hunter: I tabled these amendments on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, as I did the previous group, but I am conscious that they have wider support.
 The amendments and new clauses have a common theme: they would extend the remit of the Bill to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, and amend that Act. New clause 4 addresses the issue of a natural entry to the police service for full-time reserves, and new clause 5 deals with one of the more contentious areas of Northern Ireland legislation—the so-called 50:50 requirement for the admission of police recruits. Amendments No. 66 and 67 are technical amendments that facilitate the inclusion of the new clauses in the Bill. New clause 4 is self-explanatory: it proposes a new section 45A to be inserted after section 45 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, and proposed section 45A(3) in particular also relates to the 50:50 requirement. 
 Since the inception of the Patten reforms, the position of reserve members of the police in Northern Ireland has been ambiguous, and that has been acutely felt by those officers who serve as full-time reserve members of the police service. Full-time reserve officers have vast experience and many of them have long and distinguished records. Their service has been invaluable in combating loyalist and republican 
 terrorism and defending all citizens of Northern Ireland from attack. 
 Since 1971, some 49 members of the full-time reserve have been murdered and several thousand have been injured, several hundred of them permanently so. The full-time reserve has served with distinction, sharing the risks and the demanding challenges of protecting the public. Their expertise also extends to dealing with non-terrorist criminal activities: they have extensive experience of interfacing with the public and dealing with everyday policing matters. That wealth of experience was threatened by the Patten reforms. 
 If the full-time reserve is abolished, some 1,600 experienced, fully trained officers who are already working on the ground will be forced out of the service. Despite their exemplary record, they have been treated with contempt and indifference. Patten recommended that they should be phased out—airbrushed from history. Despite a temporary reprieve, their future is uncertain. 
 That state of affairs is particularly scandalous given the crisis in the number of serving officers because of the Patten reforms, the loss of morale in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the level of early retirements from the force. It is an irrefutable fact that the Police Service of Northern Ireland suffers from the highest levels of sick leave of any force in the United Kingdom. Those rates have increased since the implementation of the Patten reforms began. Numbers plunged last year to 6,900 serving officers, which is below the peacetime operational level recommended by Patten. If the full-time reserve is disbanded there will be 1,600 fewer officers in Northern Ireland. 
 My new section 45A has a simple objective. It is to secure the position of those officers. People who have sacrificed so much over the years deserve no less. They continue to police Northern Ireland with distinction, but they have no security in respect of their future. The new clause would secure the future for dedicated officers who continue to serve with distinction. As policing numbers decline and the discriminatory recruitment practices of section 46 of the 2000 Act prevent recruitment of adequate numbers of officers, it is paramount that those officers are not lost. Quite simply, we cannot afford to lose them. 
 Currently, if a full-time reservist wants to transfer to the officer ranks, he is treated like any other member of the community. He simply applies as anyone would. His experience and dedication over the years are not taken into account. New clause 4 would allow full-time reserve officers to apply for a lateral transfer. It would give the full-time reserves security of tenure, retain desperately needed expertise and increase the number of officers. 
 New clause 5 rests on the simple proposition that the overriding principle governing appointments, whether to the Judicial Appointments Commission, the judiciary or the police service, should be based on merit alone. One is encouraged to put forward that point of view because the Government accept and assert it in the Bill with regard to the judiciary and 
 members of the Commission. Such appointments must be made 
''solely on the basis of merit''.
 The concept of being ''reflective of the community'', according the to the Bill and the Government's justification for it, is highly desirable, but it is nevertheless a secondary consideration. It applies only 
''so far as is practicable''.
 Merit is the sole determining factor. 
 Reduced to simplicity, new clause 5 applies precisely the same principle to the selection of police recruits. What the Government legislate for judges, they should also legislate for police officers. The essence of the argument is that the 50:50 provision in the 2000 Act is unparalleled in legislation in the United Kingdom or in the Commonwealth, and that it is iniquitous. In passing it, the Government required derogation from European anti-discrimination law, which is an unwelcome and uneasy position to adopt. 
 The consequences of the 50:50 requirement have been disturbing to put it mildly. To date, 777 young men and women with all the necessary qualifications and personal qualities to become police officers have been denied the career of their choice for the simple reason that they happen to be Protestants. They are the victims of state-orchestrated, state-legislated discrimination. This is an ugly and intolerable state of affairs that cannot be justified. 
 Another consequence is that police numbers are plunging. Given that the police must recruit 50 per cent. Catholics and 50 per cent. non-Catholics, the numbers of police recruits are not determined by the applicants' merits, but by the number of suitably qualified Catholics who apply. In the extreme, if no Catholic were to apply, no policeman could be recruited in Northern Ireland. It is clear that such legalised sectarian discrimination has not worked and is not working. It is not attracting young Catholic men and women into the police force, and it has succeeded in leaving Northern Ireland with an undermanned police force with falling morale. 
 It is not surprising that Catholic recruits are not forthcoming. To illustrate, I can say that someone with his ear close to the ground tells me that in south Armagh about this time last year, nine young Catholic men from respectable, hard-working families were thinking of applying to become recruits, but the provisional republican movement got to know about that, called on each of the families late at night and gave parents some ''friendly'' advice about what could happen if their sons joined the police. Not surprisingly, not one of those young men went forward. I do not blame them, but the fact is that they were intimidated, and the men of violence won again. 
 A fully functional, fully operational police force recruited solely on merit is urgently needed in the Province. A policeman's religion is irrelevant to his ability to perform his duties. The creation and maintenance of a stable society demands that that is acknowledged. Legalised and institutionalised 
 sectarianism is not the way forward. A police force recruited solely on the basis of merit is urgently needed, given several factors: the increased incidence of violence and terrorism since the Belfast agreement; the IRA's refusal to renounce violence irrevocably, decommission totally and disband completely; the increase in crime; the decline in police numbers; and the fact that the SDLP at grass-roots level is, rightly, not the only party demanding more visible policemen. 
 Discrimination is wrong in any facet of life in Northern Ireland or anywhere in the United Kingdom, whether on grounds of sex, race or religion. It cannot be defended, but section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 legalises it. To argue against the amendment is to argue for the indefensible and a practice that is morally wrong. A few weeks ago, the Government carried forward their intention to retain 50:50 recruitment for a further three years, despite overwhelming evidence that the policy is flawed and incapable of delivering the desired results. It is nothing short of scandalous that we allow it to continue. 
 New clause 4 would place a duty on the Chief Constable to recruit the best people for the job, on the basis of merit. That is only right and proper. It would return policing in Northern Ireland to the position enjoyed by all police forces in the democratic world. I urge the Committee to accept the two new clauses and the facilitating amendments that accompany them.

David Trimble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on tabling these proposals, which he says he has introduced on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. I must say that sometimes I am not entirely sure of the exact nature of the relationship between the hon. Gentleman, who was elected as a Conservative, and the Democratic Unionist party.

Andrew Hunter: Neither am I.

David Trimble: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman cannot clarify this further. However, it is interesting that we have the first amendments connected with policing in Northern Ireland tabled by—or on behalf of—the DUP since the Patten report.
 As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Patten report was published in 1999 and followed by legislation. My party tabled some 200 amendments to that Bill in Committee and we have been active in Parliament in opposing 50:50 and associated matters ever since. Unfortunately, until now, the DUP has not been active in any way in Committee. 
 I am probably right in saying that the DUP could have had one of its own Members on the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) nodding. At least the DUP has sent along the hon. Member for Basingstoke. That is a good thing, because he understands the procedures of the House well enough to have tabled these proposals, although I am not sure that the party on whose behalf he tabled them would have displayed the same skill. I welcome the fact that the DUP is beginning to do something on this issue, albeit indirectly through the hon. Gentleman. Would that it had done so beforehand. 
 I shall not talk about the merits of the matter. However, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said and refer him and other members of the Committee to what I said a few weeks ago during consideration in the House of the extension of the 50:50 practice. I shall not reflect on the details or comment on that practice, because if I do so I will only make myself angry again—I have enough to be upset about this afternoon without reflecting on that matter. 
 I welcome the hon. Gentleman and, through him, the DUP to the fray. I wish that the DUP had got involved earlier and that it would not, from a purely partisan point of view, try to discourage people from pursuing other ways of challenging 50:50, as some of my friends are doing.

Desmond Swayne: I have great sympathy with the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, for which he made a powerful case. In relation to new clause 4, the Minister is duty bound to give us an insight on how he proposes to deal with the question of numbers, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, if we are to dispense with the services of the full-time reserve, as is planned. I pressed Ministers on that at the last Northern Ireland Question Time.
 I have before me a parliamentary answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which was answered on 9 February at column 162 by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). It gives, in tabular form, a list of the numbers for the regular police and the full-term reserve—sorted by district command unit—and presents a stark picture. The number of regular officers is 4,504 and the number of officers in the full-time reserve is 1,446. By my reckoning, that means that a quarter of the police force is made up of full-time reservists. However, one can see that in certain district command units that proportion is even higher. In Belfast, East, for example, there are 216 regular and 114 reserve officers. By my reckoning, reservists make up a third of the force. 
 Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting three representatives of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. They made the point that those officers are involved in front-line policing duties; they are not a reserve in the sense that we might ordinarily conceive of one. The Minister is therefore duty bound to give us an insight on how we will do without the services of those officers if the plan proceeds, although I would much prefer him to accept new clause 4. 
 On new clause 5, I agree that quotas are objectionable in principle, and it would be vastly better if we had selection purely on merit. The Government's objective is admirable and desirable, but the means by which they have chosen to pursue it are unjust and a blunt instrument. Having said that, I welcome unreservedly the increase in the number of Catholic police officers in Northern Ireland. As the Minister can probably confirm, the proportion has increased from 14 per cent.—

John Spellar: Eight to 14 per cent.

Desmond Swayne: I stand corrected. That increase is very welcome, and it deserves a tribute from us all to the courage and professionalism of those Catholic officers and the members of that community who serve on the police boards in the face of threats and intimidation. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has already given us a flavour of what they are up against, and they deserve huge appreciation from us.
 There has been a considerable increase in the recruitment of Catholic officers, but did it happen because of the quota? I am sure Ministers will say that it did and that we are seeing the policy bear fruit. I doubt that, however, and I would say that the changed situation and the support and endorsement of the SDLP were much more important. That is the breakthrough. 
 If the Minister believes that the increase in recruitment is purely the effect of the quota, surely it follows that to increase the proportion of Catholic officers more quickly to 50 per cent. we should reduce the size of the non-Catholic quota. Why do we not move to a 60, 70 or 100 per cent. quota for Catholic officers to accelerate the process? No one believes that that is feasible because, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a shortage and the policy will not work in reality. The quota is temporary and designed to achieve a particular objective, but my reasoning is that the objective is being achieved by other means. 
 The real brake on the recruitment of more Catholic officers is the intimidation of recruits and potential recruits, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke drew attention, and Sinn Fein's refusal to endorse the force and give public support. In that context, Sinn Fein's recent spending of £25,000 to take out newspaper advertisements in the United States to decry the Police Service of Northern Ireland is a disgrace. We look to the Government to bring enormous pressure to bear on that organisation to secure a change in that policy. 
 There are other ways to pursue the objective. In this country, we place a duty on public authorities in respect of race relations and being reflective of the community. An enormous injustice rankles with those who pass the recruitment test on merit but find themselves excluded purely on quota grounds. If they want to reapply, they are back to square one, as if they had never applied in the first place. That creates a huge sense of grievance, so I support the proposals tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke.

John Spellar: I am glad that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has raised the question of intimidation of local policing partnership bodies, the police and potential police recruits. Let us be under no illusion that that is driven primarily by some obscure political theory—it is often driven by a desire and a need to protect criminal enterprise. We all recognise that, and I am sure that the House is united in condemning such behaviour.
 We are getting recruits, however, and more than 530 entered training in the first year, which is well in excess of Patten's figure of 370. More than 1,100 have joined the service. That is well above the number joining pre-Patten. There has been a reduction in 
 numbers because a considerable quantity of police have taken advantage of severance arrangements. Quite a number have gone to work in other countries, using their considerable skills there, but the recruitment is providing redress.

Andrew Hunter: We are all familiar with the statistics. Will the Minister clarify whether the interpretation that he is putting on them is that there is no problem with recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

John Spellar: I am saying that the number of recruits is above that anticipated and that the deficit is being addressed. I shall come to how the policy is working in other ways. The obverse side of an argument that says, ''We wish to discourage severance,'' is to provide less generous severance terms to those who have served over a number of years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to advance that argument.
 I acknowledge the firmly held views, as expressed again today, on 50:50 recruitment. However, this is not the proper context for debating that policy as it was debated fully during the passage of the 2000 Act and, much more recently, during last month's discussions on the order providing for the temporary provisions to continue in force for three years. I know that certain hon. Members do not agree with the temporary provisions, but they should recognise that, under the 50:50 recruitment policy, the percentage of Roman Catholics in the PSNI has increased from 8 per cent. in 2000 to more than 14 per cent. in March 2004, and continues to increase. 
 The hon. Gentleman also referred to the full-time reserve. Patten recommended a police strength of 7,500 regulars and a part-time reserve of 2,500, with the full-time reserve to be phased out. The Chief Constable and the Policing Board have agreed that the phasing out will begin in April 2005, subject to a review of the prevailing security situation to be carried out later this year by the Chief Constable. Obviously, we await that. 
 New clause 4 would allow members of the full-time reserve to transfer automatically to become police trainees after a year's service, subject to certain exceptions. At the moment, they can apply to join the police service. As the hon. Gentleman said, they have to go through the same process, but 158 members of the full-time reserve have already succeeded in that. A limited number of places are available each year, and allowing members of the full-time reserve to transfer automatically would disadvantage others who wish to become police officers. These proposals, although introduced honestly, represent an attempt to try to go over old ground, so I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press them.

Andrew Hunter: I do not remotely apologise for going over old ground—these debates are fundamental. The Minister's comments horrify me. He says that this is not the ''proper context'' in which to debate these proposals. Well, they are totally in order and you, Mr. Benton, selected them. It is most appropriate,
 therefore, that we debate them. It is not for a Minister to decree that this is not the proper context. This is the proper context, but he dealt with the proposals in a cavalier, over-hasty fashion.
 We know the Government's position, but the issues are so important that the arguments must be presented at every available opportunity. Those who share my view believe that the Government's position is fundamentally wrong. ''Cavalier'' is the appropriate word, because the Minister's galloped response did not address the seriousness of the issues. His comments will be read outside the Committee and judged accordingly. He should at least have devoted more time and detail to the serious points that I tried, to the best of my ability, to raise, but he chose not to. Therefore, I will not withdraw the amendment. The Committee's composition makes the result predictable, but we must make a stand on principle. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Clauses 18 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Short title

Amendment made: No. 7, in 
clause 22, page 11, line 9, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 4 - Lateral entry to Police Service of Northern Ireland for serving full-time reserve officers

'After section 45 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 insert— 
 ''45A Lateral Entry to Police Service for Northern Ireland for Serving Full-Time Reserve Officers 
 (1) Those serving in the full-time reserve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland having completed one year's service may apply for a transfer to be police trainees. 
 (2) Such transfers will be automatically accepted by the Chief Constable unless: 
 (a) the applicant is subject to disciplinary action; or 
 (b) the applicant is subject to an investigation by the Police Ombudsman. 
 (3) A person making an application under this section will not be subject to the provisions of section 46.''.'.—[Mr. Hunter.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 5Discrimination in appointments

New Clause 5 - Discrimination in appointments

'For section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 substitute— 
 ''46 Discrimination in appointments 
 In making appointments under section 39 the Chief Constable shall appoint candidates on merit alone.''.'.—[Mr. Hunter.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment made: No. 65, in 
title, line 7, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 
 'another part of the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-three minutes past Three o'clock.